 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Seeker
|
 |
London Ontario
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
"Read a newspaper.
A British SAS squaddie was critically injured before Christmas whilst storming a Taliban strongpoint. He survived. Others in his unit escaped serious injury due to their body armour.
I'm interested in your definition of 'critical'. Link?"
!!
Wiglaf, you are a pig.
You want blood, eh? You go and do it. You think that other nations haven't proven their committment until one of their soldiers dies?!
The fact that the US army is several factors more funded and larger than the rest of the Alliance (due to the fact that the USA invests more money in the military than anyone), it is not exactly difficult to predict that they would take proportionately more casualties.
Canada is a country of only 33 million. That's less than many US states. We do not invest a lot in the military. And yet, you expect the Canadian military, underfunded, stretched out in engagements around the world to be somehow equal to the US??!
Why don't you ask why Mexico, a country with more military spending, isn't sending troops? Or South Korea?
The Canadian military performs far beyond the tasks it was created to perform for a military of its size and funding. Given the geriatric nature of our equipment, and our understaffing, the fact that a relatively small nation is actually making a contribution like this is surprising. Why do you have such high expectations of us?
Also, your Secretary of defense could easily request and recieve and additional aid. In fact he said on CNN that the USA was satisfied.
You seem to think that our leaders should be demanding to just put more bodies on the ground, so that we can have some kind of 'trophy blood' to show you and your kind?
The LAST thing Afghanistan needs are large amounts of foreign infantry tramping around. The generals have called in the professionals, commandos with specialized skills from all contributing countries, mostly Americans because they're the biggest and best funded. It was the right call. The fact that tiny Canada, for no pressing reason of national security, is actually contributing its commandos and peacekeepers, to a hostile location 10 000 kilometers away, for no other reason than humanitarian and because we like the US, is something you should be grateful for!
Why not harrass Ireland for having the GALL to not have enough soldiers die for the USA? (or, more properly, for pigs like you)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
We send nothing but 'peacekeepers'? First you are saying that we do nothing, now you are complaining that the kind of soldiers we send are not the right type. We have provided you with lots of assistance, and now my own country has the leading role in restoring order in Afghanistan. All you seem to be concerned with is is how much you can blow up  F**king warmonger. |
No, the soldiers you're sending are just the right type. They'll just never recieve orders to do anything but pose. The BBC can say whatever they want, I want the reports of wounded SAS confirmed by a somewhat less biased source.
quote:
Shed a few hundred pounds, pick up a rifle, and go find me Bin Laden. Anything else is un-American and useless! |
Shed a few hundred pounds? In any event, you're still missing my point: we've got more than enough people over there. The problem is that we might have too many. As Britain/Canada/etc have promised aid, why not even out the numbers of Americans with other nations involved in the coalition? Take the burden off us a bit?
Because it'd hurt you - badly - politcially.
quote:
You want blood, eh? You go and do it. You think that other nations haven't proven their committment until one of their soldiers dies?! |
The BBC is such ultra liberal propaganda crap it's hard to pay much attention to. As they don't seem to go into detail, I've got no reason to believe those troops weren't just scratched or something by a piece of glass. Christ, find me a better source. That's how bad I think those idiots are. I haven't heard anything about a hurt or wounded soldier who wasn't from America during EF. Ever. Not on CNN, not on Fox.
quote:
Why not harrass Ireland for having the GALL to not have enough soldiers die for the USA? (or, more properly, for pigs like you) |
You don't seem to understand. For every Brit/Aussie/etc troop to enter Afghanistan, one American leaves. We do that until the numbers are more even and distributed. That way we're all involved, and Blair's bullshit PR promise is made a reality.
Thanks for adding something to the discussion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seeker
|
|
London Ontario
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
"For every Brit/Aussie/etc troop to enter Afghanistan, one American leaves. We do that until the numbers are more even and distributed"
You don't get it do you? On what basis is 'evenly distributed'? By population, Canada is overrepresented. By military funding, Canada is overrepresented.
And why the hell should the 'etc' countries want to send one of their own to die in place of an American, fighting in a foreign country? Clean up your own mess.
'We' will help to the extent 'we':
A)can,
B)are asked to,
C) is in accordance with 'our' values, which emphasize freedom, human rights, peaceful settlements, and the rule of law--not with American values.
D)Makes political and military sense. More bodies is not what is needed. This is a job for elite special forces. Only the world's most powerful military countries have a lot of well equipped forces like this that can be projected long distances. It is somewhat disconcerting that the Canadian military even has any kind of special forces that can be projected this far away. No other nation of our size does.
Further, special forces operations are not WW2 style operations. A huge, multi-national force is just not appropriate. What is appropriate are the 'best of the best', the professionals, not some unwieldy mass of infantry under multiple commands, which would only serve to up the Allied body count.
But that's what you really want isn't it? You really believe that because an American soldier has died, other countries have to somehow 'match' this...which is moronic.
The Americans are perfectly capable of cleaning up their own mess. We send support for humanitarian reasons and as a sign that we support the war aims as stated. If this conflict required a big Gulf War force, and there was actually a good reason for such a force, then it would be put together. But it does not require it.
The Pentagon actually handled things really well. They kept things 'in-house' and avoided international entanglements. They didn't try to put a real foreign army on Afghan soil.
Why don't you stop backseat driving and leave the war up to the professionals?
Maybe you have some kind of primitive, Nordic concept of a 'blood price' or sacrifice? That Allied countries have to tie some young men down on your altar and sacrifice them for no good reason to 'balance the scales'? How very Old Testament of you!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andrew1999
|
|
I'd be extremely interested in casualty figures among the pro-US Afghan groups--especially considering the lengths we go to in order to keep our people away from the actual fighting.
The Northern Alliance, Eastern Alliance, etc. are the ones actually fighting and winning this war, not the US Army or anyone else.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-01-2002 05:00
.....although the taliban still is short by 427,519 casaulties. 
|